Archive for ‘PIV’

Radical feminism, by definition, seeks to dis-cover and examine the root of women’s global oppression by men, and the sources of male power. In our work, we have discovered that there are several key themes that appear over and over, and which transcend time and place — this is evidence that women’s oppression by men is class-based, that is, that women as a sexual class, around the world, share the experience of being oppressed by men because we are women.

In this series, republished in part from Radfem-ological Images, we present 17 themes for discussion and analysis. Like all radical feminists previously and presently, we do this because it is the truth, and radical feminists accept the truth no matter what it is, especially the truths about women’s lives and what men do to us.

In Part Three, we present just one theme, the “PIV-centric narrative” and its 6 subthemes: Goal is to “land a man”; Normalize exaggerated/simulated female pleasure; Normalize reproductive stress and pain; Pathologize menstruation; Pathlogize older women and menopause/fetishize female youth; Rape and rape culture. Part One is here. Part Two is here.

As is often the case with misogynists and anti-feminists, the trans horde that took advantage of the “inclusivity” (read: a transwoman helped organize the march, and woe be unto anyone who crosses men who demand access to woman-only space in general) of NYC Dyke March — and others who weren’t even there — don’t seem to have read a word of anything Sheila Jeffreys has actually written. If they had read her, how could it have rationally been said that Jeffreys — a pro-female, pro-lesbian writer — and her work had no place at a lesbian-centered event?

Or, perhaps they read a couple of words, saw something they didn’t like, and threw away the rest? “The rest” being Sheila Jeffreys’s entire life’s work of pro-female, pro-lesbian, PIV-critical radical feminist analysis which spans decades and examines women’s lives from pre-WWI — a body of work from which modern women can draw many parallels, recognize obvious patterns in how women are oppressed by men over time, and call age-old bullshit when we see it, because we are never, ever allowed to see it. Women’s history is routinely erased, and this is a deliberate political strategy to keep women as ignorant of patriarchal context and as oppressed — and as complicit in our own oppression — as possible.

US residents may have noticed the recent War on Women being perpetrated in this country using the excuse of “religious freedom” to justify this rollback of women’s rights.

For the most recent installment of this assault on our rights, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed House Bill 2625, which authorizes employers with religious affiliations to refuse to cover contraception on their employees’ health insurance plans.

States Brewer about the bill:

In its final form, this bill is about nothing more than preserving the religious freedom to which we are all Constitutionally-entitled. Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the 1st Amendment.

Around the time of the discovery of the AIDS virus in the very early 1980s, the Gay (and Lesbian) community adopted the ideology of homosexuality as innate; Gay (and Lesbian) people were born this way ergo they could not be “fixed”, it wasn’t their “fault” and AIDS could not be a punishment from God if the theist belief of being “made in His image“ were to hold.

It was politically expedient at the time, and quite intuitive really, to claim a biological basis for homosexuality when the AIDS pandemic itself was, and continues to be, a biological disaster. An innate homosexuality also allowed people close to Gays (and Lesbians), especially mothers, to absolve themselves of any *wrong doing* and instead build a platform from which they could advocate for their children, fathers (and mothers), brothers (and sisters), husbands (and wives) as full human beings with full human/medical rights.

as i think has been made abundantly clear by now, women are literally putting their lives and physical and mental wellbeing on the line, every fucking time they engage in PIV. (sorry! really, i am). if its not the very reasonable fear of being raped at some point during the encounter, its the fear of disease, and the dread, absolute dread of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. and that last one applies even in wanted encounters with trusted partners, does it not? every single act of intercourse, from somewhat pre-menstruation to somewhat post-menopause. or…until your mate gets his nads snipped…and even then. fear, and dread. foreboding, terror, and bargaining with god. counting the days.

assuming i havent just eaten, and if its the third wednesday of an odd month or something and i am in the mood, i kind of enjoy observing, if not engaging, those silly old male-identified liberal progressive fun-feminists. because every single time i hear one of them speak, it takes me further and further down the rabbit hole. wheeeee! twirling, twirling down the rabbit hole of sex-pos double-think, deeper and deeper into the vast cavernous void that passes for “logic” and “reason” in that post-modern dick-pleasing world. of course, most of the time, its literally impossible to figure out just what in the world they are even talking about. but sometimes, just sometimes, when the planets are aligned just right…

Sasha Grey is an exited pornography victim who was known for participating in nearly all the degrading types of acts available in pornography. Before her retirement, she was the best-known woman in the industry besides Jenna Jameson (source Pornland by Gail Dines, p. 41). At her first shoot shortly after her 18th birthday, she asked her costar/paid rapist to punch her in the stomach. She also claims to have invented licking a toilet seat as part of a scene in pornography.

After only being in the porn industry for about three years, Ms. Grey has retired from the filmed exploitation business. But why, if the industry was so lucrative and she loved sex so much, did she retire?

My 1990 book Anticlimax, which has been out of print, is being republished by Spinifex Press this month with a new preface. It is a book of which I am particularly fond because I wrote it in the late 1980s, as a way of making sense of my own experience of the ‘sexual revolution’. The sexual history of the 1960s was being written up in the 1980s as a process of women’s sexual liberation. I did not see it that way.

I did remember that the ‘alternative’ magazines of the period, Oz and International Times, were full of women’s naked bodies, albeit painted with flowers often enough, and promoted pornography as liberating. In the book I had the opportunity to look back at what was really going on, through the sex advice literature and the pornography of the time. I wrote Anticlimax, and my first book, The Spinster and Her Enemies (1985/1997), to demonstrate that the ‘sexual revolutions’ of the twentieth century liberated men’s sexual access to women rather than women’s empowerment.

i currently have 3 books going at the same time, which is one or two (or three) more than usual. and i dont have to read any of them. it might be a personal record.

first, i am re-reading dworkin’s intercourse. this one was a game-changer for me the first time, but as i’ve gone on with my work i have started to think that she didnt go far enough. is this possible? the first time around, it was the first time i had ever encountered a critique of intercourse as an institution and a harmful cultural practice; what changed the game for me was dworkin calling attention to the fact that intercourse directed toward the vagina is historically fetishized, and procreative intercourse is historically fetishized. this made me realize that there was a biological component to this practice that hadnt occurred to me before. not that there is a biological drive to do it or any of that ev psych shit, but that there is a reason that women are fucked, and it has something to do with the fact that we are impregnable. hmm!

What would life look like FOR MEN if feminism succeeded? Liberal doods have a brand-new book that purports to reveal the mystery: The Guy’s Guide to Feminism by Michael Kimmel and Michael Kaufman. The Michaels – known for Guyland and the White Ribbon Campaign, respectively – have written “a fun, quick read that makes the case that feminism is as good for men as it is for women.” An excerpt: